Best ground force General of WW II (SD Vote)

Discussion in 'Military History' started by Miragedriver, Jun 26, 2015.

?

Please choose your top three ground force generals of World War II

Poll closed Jun 27, 2016.
  1. Zhukov - Soviet Union

    12 vote(s)
    42.9%
  2. Patton - United States

    4 vote(s)
    14.3%
  3. Rommel - Germany

    13 vote(s)
    46.4%
  4. Montgomery - Great Britain

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  5. Zhu De - China

    6 vote(s)
    21.4%
  6. Model - Germany

    3 vote(s)
    10.7%
  7. McArthur - United States

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  8. Feder von Bock - Germany

    3 vote(s)
    10.7%
  9. Eisenhower - United States

    5 vote(s)
    17.9%
  10. Bradley - United States

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,246
    Likes Received:
    29,545
    I have them open for a year...so you have plenty of time.
     
    Miragedriver likes this.
  2. Richard Santos
    Offline

    Richard Santos Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    894
    Without naming the circumstances in which they find themselves, and the forces they lead, it is bullshit to try to compare these generals.

    I wouldn't imagine Zhu de would be much good at all if he suddenly find himself in command of a panzer army fighting Zhukov before Moscow. I also don't think Patton ever proved himself to any degree against any truly strategically and tactically stronger opponent as Model had.

    Different generals have different strengths and weaknesses. A general exceptional in one tactical or strategic circumstances may be second rate in another. Some generals may not be truly outstanding in any pure tactical or strategic sense, but possess the ability to synthesize the strengths of his subordinate to the extent that as a team, he and his subordinates are nearly beatable, where as separately he and his subordinates may appear second rate.

    Other generals may not be tactically outstanding in the conventional sense, but possess a innovative vision of how to use his forces that is ahead of his contemporaries, and as a result enjoy a fabulous run while he was ahead, but unable to sustain it when his contemparies catches up.
     
    #52 Richard Santos, Mar 2, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2016
    delft likes this.
  3. Lezt
    Offline

    Lezt Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    236
    I think General is a fairly loose term

    You have field marshals like Manstein and Montgomery who lead army groups in the field

    Then you have chief of staff generals like.. Eisenhower who didn't fight a battle but organized a war..

    Then you have a whole bunch of major general, lieutenant generals, brigadier general.. commanding anything from a brigade, to divisions, to corps, to armies...

    So it is a very hard comparison. like, Rommel is likely better than Model to control divisions, but Model is probably better with army groups. While Patton it would seem, is good with a division or corp sized unit.
     
  4. Richard Santos
    Offline

    Richard Santos Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    894
    Patton never had to control corps or divisions when the enemy had overwhelming advantage in the air, as well as degree of mechanization on the ground.
     
  5. alexycyap
    Offline

    alexycyap Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Tomoyuki Yamashita should be on that list. He led a small army into Malaya and defeated the British led army more than four times the size of his army. He earned the title of Tiger Of Malaya after capturing Singapore in 1942.
    Later in 1944, he led the defense of Luzon, Philippines against McArthur's far superior invasion force. Even when hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered, he managed to keep fighting in northern Luzon until after the surrender of Japan.
    IMHO Yamashita may have been a nasty war criminal, but nevertheless a great WWII general.
     
  6. Jura
    Offline

    Jura Lieutenant General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    12,896
    Likes Received:
    18,038
    I don't vote here for the reasons I gave
    https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/best-ground-force-general-of-ww-ii-sd-vote.t7795/page-4#post-349418
    anyway noticed
    ... and as far as I know, he was hanged for his endeavors
     
  7. antiterror13
    Offline

    antiterror13 Major

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    3,368
    He was the worst war criminal, so no, he shouldn't be in the league ... Genghis Khan would be much better because there was any rules in his time
     
  8. alexycyap
    Offline

    alexycyap Just Hatched
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought this is a vote for best WWII GENERAL, not most humane or ethical person.
     
  9. Richard Santos
    Offline

    Richard Santos Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    894
    Actually, Just about every Japanese army on the offensive committed atrocities. But yamashita was the only Japanese general to go on the record apologizing for Japanese war crimes while Japan was winning. He surrendered in the end instead of committing suicide because he felt others would have to take the blame that were committed in his area of responsibility if he had killed himself.

    I have to say yamashita was less objectionable of Japanese generals in terms of humanity.
     
    #59 Richard Santos, Mar 7, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2016
Loading...

Share This Page